The Culture of Corruption: Reid KO’d
Put another nail in the coffin of the ‘Culture of Corruption’ talking point:
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who has criticized Republican ethics, accepted free ringside tickets to three professional boxing matches from Nevada officials who were trying to influence his federal legislation regulating the sport.
Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.
Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the boxing bill and that he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. “Anyone from Nevada would say I’m glad he is there taking care of the state’s No. 1 businesses,” he told The Associated Press.
Yes, I’m quite sure the people of Nevada will be glad to hear Reid is attending free boxing matches provided by people who are trying to get on his good side.
I’m still warily eyeing the Hastert situation, however…
“As he pressed legislation to INCREASE federal oversight of boxing”…they weren’t doing a very good job of getting on his good side…
Mike, further on in the same article:
“Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence or elicit favorable official action,” the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.
“Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided,” the manual says.
Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.
I just don’t understand the Dem’s leadership these days – if you can even call what they do as “leadership.” Reid and Pelosi come off poorly on – camera, and their political strategy has no coherency or direction. They just jump from the talking point du jeur of the week, only to have to backtrack when the first stone is inevitably cast back at them.
They must be counting on Bush’s poll numbers to stay this low through the end of his term – a risky strategy, as history proves.
I think it’s a pretty lean talent pool on both sides of the aisle — and I can understand why (who in their right mind would go through everything you have to do in politics these days?) — the number of politicians with the stature of Sam Rayburn, Sam Nunn, or Bob Dole (just to pick a few) is slim to none –
I’m just frustrated that whichever side wins will think themselves vindicated. Republicans do not deserve to keep the majority, but Democrats have done zip to prove they deserve it either.
It’s at times like this that I sympathize with John McCain’s impulses on campaign finance reform. I think he just wants to see an end to this kind of relentless money-grubbing. I think the way he’s going about it is wrong, and the only sure way to lessen government corruption is to lessen government power, but I understand the desire to chase the moneychangers out of the temple.
I have to agree with Peter (for once).
It’s not a new story from Solomon.
It is a new story – that was OTHER corruption on Reid’s part. That’s beside the point – instead of attacking the messenger, why not address the substance?…
Peter, your point is well made. Both parties are pretty inept right now. The Repubs keeps shooting themselves in the foot and will probably blow off their entire leg before November and the Dems just keep making Jackasses of themselves (pun intended). Which party will self-destruct before November? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks. And these people are our leaders?
Well, they are our leaders, but their poor quality reflects on us. As long as the press and the public focus on things like whether Al Gore should wear earth tones, whether Bill and Hillary spend enough time together, or whether George Bush drank too much as a twenty-something, then it’s unlikely that we’ll find someone who meets criteria of true excellence. One of the more inane surveys of 2004 was which Presidential candidate you “would rather have a beer with.” Personally, I would be more interested in which candidate is better suited to lead the country. We also want our leaders to be affable, good-natured, and handsome (it’s no accident that Presidents have almost always been taller than the US average — do you think that someone who looks like George Costanza could be elected, regardless of how qualified?)
As long as we focus on trivia — as well as a process where every aspect of someone’s life is ruthlessly seized on by the opposition — we will never get the caliber of leadership we should have.
Hey, if you could vote for fictional characters, I’d vote for George Costanza – but then, he reminds me of myself…
Mark:
Who’s George Costanza?
The paunchy, bald guy from Seinfeld –
Actually, if you could vote for fictional characters, I think I’d go with Kramer…
Picture of Mark:
http://info.pajamasmedia.com/index.php?p=2006/02/decision_08_mark_coffey.php
You do look like George Costanza. Not a Seinfeld fan.
Indeed – only even less good-looking…
Ah, well, you play the hand you’re dealt!…
I said @5:15 PM: “Mark: who’s George Costanza?”
“peter Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The paunchy, bald guy from Seinfeld –”
No wonder I didn’t know him. I never got past the pilot with that piece of donkey fazoo.
Mark: Pointing to an article to lays out a case about the substance with an undertone of ‘attack the messenger’ is good enough for me. I have already addressed the substance in my first post and it’s all that needs to be said as far as I’m concerned.
What evidence is there of this statement: “Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who has criticized Republican ethics, accepted free ringside tickets to three professional boxing matches from Nevada officials who were trying to influence his federal legislation regulating the sport.”? According to who? Solomon or someone he isn’t identifying (and not identifying even as someone who refused to identify themself). In any event, it’s a weak case.
What plausible alternative is there? People don’t give away ringside seats out of charity…
The reaction of John McCain, who paid $1,400 for his similar seats, in an effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety, speaks volumes…
Mark: Hope you see this before it goes to page 2, but, check out this TPMmuckraker article today. Or is Arum just coming to bat for Reid since, you know, presumably he was involved with “bribing” him into voting for some such thing or another?
Yeah, but Mike, that’s Bob Arum – he’s a boxing guy, not a congressional ethics guy…Reid himself said that he was going to discontinue the practice today. Why do that if everything is on the up and up?…
Reid also admitted that he ‘mistated’ (*cough, cough*) the ethics rules when challenged by the AP…
Look for a fuller reply to the TPM Muckracker article later tonight, I hope…